Sam Harris.org Reader Forum1970-01-01T00:00:00ZCopyright (c) 2015ExpressionEnginetag:https:,2015:01:22Will the other Waking Up talks/Q&amp;A’s be made available?tag:https:,2015:/www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8614/viewthread/.179292015-01-22T15:57:03Z1970-01-01T00:00:00ZThomaat
As far as I understand it there were 3 separate talks/Q&A’s and all 3 were recorded. Only one talk and one Q&A are currently available. Will the other talks be made available? I know there will be alot of overlap, especially in the talks, but I would nevertheless like to see those as well.
]]>
Cenk &amp; Sam: Disappointing &amp; Disturbingtag:https:,2014:/www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8614/viewthread/.178562014-10-28T02:42:43Z1970-01-01T00:00:00ZMark P.
Having read about Sam Harris’ deep meditation background I was expecting more equanimity from him in the Cenk (Young Turks) discussion. Instead their tension (both of them) was palpable in tone and body language…and in the dialog. The arguments always devolved into anecdotal evidence and significant points often glossed over.’
There was an important point made about preventing collateral damage as a possible justification for torture. Cenk adamantly maintains that that, and first strike nuclear option, should not even be considered. To even speak of them is to inflame discourse and to perform them is beyond the bounds of morality. What morality is was not addressed although it’s an interesting and important question. At the very least the long term consequences are much worse than the ‘collateral damage’ that might ensue from not considering them. I rather agree with him. It may be similar to the argument that to pay ransome is to invite further hostage taking. Accept the damage now to avoid worse later. But more important than the argument, or at least my take on it, is that the issue was never engaged in any substantive way in this discussion with Cenk and the fault did not lie with either party, it was the whole style of point making in an emotionally heightened setting that did not allow ideas to open and flow. Even agreements were spoken with a heightened verbal tension.

One of the two major areas of discussion was the relative roles of religiosity and political, social conditions in the generation of terrible behavior. Unfortunately this point was continually skirted and diverted in questions of whether Islam or Christianity was worse in engendered behavior or as a ideology. Once again, I happen to agree with Cenk on this point that for the most part it is social/political conditions are much more powerful determinant, although I also agree with Harris that as a religio/social/political ideology Islam is particularly amenable to conflating the causes of reaction. There was a confusion, or failure to separate out the roles of the new and old Testaments as well, both were mentioned but the separated roles would be mentioned then lost in the tense miasma of this conversation. Also lost was the temporal issue, that what we are dealing with now is an Islamic negativity. (BTW Buddhist monks in Burma did use religious justifications for the killing of Muslims! and one of two branches of Sikhism, a religion that was supposedly a way of bridging religious strife between Muslims and HIndus, recently committed an act of terror against members of the other branch!)

At the end of the conversation Sam H. positioned himself as a philosopher trying to create a nuanced and questioning approach to serious issues. However, after three hours of tense, frustratingly un-nuanced conversation, that fell rather flat.

]]>
Ben Shapiro takes on Ben Affleck’s muslim view of radical muslims being the minoritytag:https:,2014:/www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8614/viewthread/.178052014-10-16T00:06:30Z2014-10-28T10:07:14Zchronohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg
]]>
Dan Carlin’s Hardcore Historytag:https:,2014:/www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8614/viewthread/.177862014-10-09T06:45:00Z1970-01-01T00:00:00ZMD_Daniel
I have been listening to Dan Carlin for a couple years now. Mr Harris just promoted the Hardcore History podcast Carlin produces, but Carlin also produces a current affairs podcast title Common Sense. Both are awesome and worth checking out.

]]>
Sam Harris guided meditations set to musictag:https:,2014:/www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8614/viewthread/.177472014-09-09T07:20:37Z1970-01-01T00:00:00ZBo_Oksam
About a year ago I mixed both of Sam Harris’s guided meditations with one of my favorite albums, Thought For Food by The Books, and called it Bo Oksam. I hadn’t listened to either and they accidentally played simultaneously. They seemed to sync up so well that I thought it was intentional. When I realized they were separate I mixed them into single tracks and made very few adjustments. Check it out if you’re intrigued.

]]>
Gonzorealismtag:https:,2014:/www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8614/viewthread/.176182014-06-12T22:31:24Z1970-01-01T00:00:00ZInside Fantasy
Hey!
Im starting a new blog, http://gonzorealism.wordpress.com/ and it’s about Poetry and Philosophy! Check it out! It features both radical ideas and psychology of the mind.
Hope You’ll join me!
]]>
Bo Burnham song on god - bad languagetag:https:,2014:/www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8614/viewthread/.173982014-03-04T06:27:06Z1970-01-01T00:00:00ZDonnie
Saw this and thought it was thought provoking and extremely funny. It does use adult language.

“it’s easy to see that religion is an adaptation, which of course the new athiests are COMITTED to doubting. They cannot grant that religion is an adaptation, because if it’s an adaptation we can’t just rip it out. (But) if it’s a VIRUS then obviuosly we have to rip it out.”

He goes on to say that he ran the text of several new-athiest books through a program called LIWC (Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count, http://www.liwc.net), which found that because Sam frequently uses certain words he is therefore “angry” and “certain” (certain = dogmatic).

I really like Jonathan Haidt. I learned about confirmation bias and motivated reasoning from his book. Is he now making those same mistakes???

]]>
How is the self an illusion and what does it imply. In exactly what sense is the self an Illusion.tag:https:,2013:/www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8614/viewthread/.173082013-11-13T17:55:01Z1970-01-01T00:00:00Zmadscientist
I am trying to come to terms with the idea that the self is an illusion but it is kinda hard due to the fact that when I die the thing that people believe is most likely is that your mind will cease to exist. Now If what sam is saying is true about the self being an illusion then it logically follows that “you” and “I” are the universe as a whole fooling itself. Simular conclusions are being found in both physics, chemistry, and evolutionary biology, buddhism, and philosophy of the mind. Some of the examples are the quantum field, string theory, big bang, evolution, the nebula formation theory, atman (buddhism), and even cognitive neuroscience. Not only that but the theory of weak emergence, and the illusion of free will point to the same conclusion that I am not a seperate entity from the universe. Now, if I am the universe as a whole and the self is an illusion then If “I” cease to exist and the universe still exists then It would discredit all this nonsense about the self being an illusion. How can “I” cease to exist if “I” am the universe, I mean you could argue that to loose the sense of self is to not have a mind but there are many beings in the universe that have a mind and they are all me. I am having alot of trouble with forcing these 2 concepts to coexist in my mind. If I can’t square these 2 then the one that has to go will most likely be the nonsensical idea that the self is just a subjective illusion. Look at alan watts the real you on youtube and you will see what I am talking about.
]]>
Sam Harris on The Joe Rogan Experience Podcasttag:https:,2013:/www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread8614/viewthread/.173002013-11-01T05:33:54Z1970-01-01T00:00:00ZJustTruth
I did a search and did not see this posted. Enjoy!

Three hour video podcast with Joe Rogan. Audio only also available on itunes and at joerogan.net

Please post comments on what you think of the conversation. I’d love to read them as the debates have heated up on the Rogan Board forum where I am a member as well. Thanks fellow travellers!